zlacker

Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"?

Does anyone think that this suit will succeed?

Another article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/01/elon-musk...

>>bloope+(OP)
Maybe the discovery process will benefit Musk and/or harm OpenAI sufficiently to consider it a "win" for Musk. Or perhaps it's just Musk wanting to make a statement. Maybe Musk doesn't expect to actually win the suit.

>>bloope+(OP)
But in this case, it wasn’t a company, but a nonprofit.

>>nighto+b1
I wonder if the lawsuit will simply be dismissed.

>>bloope+(OP)
> Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"?

Probably depends on how much money the person behind the suit is willing to spend.

Elon could likely push stuff a lot further along than most.

>>pquki4+gx
The standard first move by a defendant is a Motion to Dismiss. So of course they'll try that. Don't read too much into it.

>>bloope+(OP)
When the world’s richest man sues you, being a saint wouldn't be a reliable defence.

>>ZiiS+Xy
Wait, Bernard Arnault is suing them too?

>>bloope+(OP)
In the publicly traded world, it would be considered securities fraud, an umbrella under which you can pretty much sue a company for anything if you’re a shareholder.

I’m not sure if there’s an equivalent in the private world, but if he gave them money it’s possible he simply has standing for that reason (as a shareholder does).

>>ZiiS+Xy
Kind of getting tired of litigious billionaires.

>>mullin+xA
Jokes are downvoted on HN but the statement is accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%27s_Billionaires

>>jimbok+Xw
Nonprofit is a tax status, not a corporate structure.

>>bloope+(OP)
lol, I invested in Google when they had the "Do no evil" thing. Now they removed it and are doing evil. I'm going to sue them!

>>static+aS
It is in this case. After Musk invested in them, they’ve incorporated separate for-profit companies to essentially profit from the IP of the non profit.

>>codexb+631
No it’s not. It’s just a corporation with one kind of tax status owning another corporation with a different tax status.

>>static+aS
It's a structure in the sense of a non profit may not have shareholders or equity.

In a practical sense, there needs not be an operational difference, and is subject to scrutiny from the IRS to determine whether an organization is eligible non profit status

>>bloope+(OP)
> Has there been a successful suit against a company for "abandoning their founding mission"?

Yes, especially nonprofits.

>>russdi+jX
Perhaps you should.

>>dragon+t51
Such as?

>>static+151
Congratulations, you’ve just described a corporate structure.

It honestly doesn’t matter what the tax statuses of either of the corporations are. If Musk had invested in OpenAI with the goal of making tons of money off their IP (as opposed to wanting to open source it) and then the board decided to just hand over all the IP to another corporation essentially for free, Musk would be just as validated in suing.

>>codexb+eq1
You continue to miss the point. The term “non-profit” in no way describes this structure.